Harden recently-changed code

An iterative reliability loop over the code changed this session: three specialists advise, you decide and apply every fix, re-run until the code is free of crashes and data-loss risks. The specialists are read-only; you keep final judgment. Each iteration:

1. Fan out 3 angles in parallel, same files, fixed set:

   • A. Data safety: lost writes, destructive migrations, races on persisted state.
   • B. Crashes: null/undefined derefs, unhandled exceptions, broken control flow.
   • C. Contracts: changed signatures, schemas, event payloads, config keys.

   Agent team if enabled (CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS): 1 teammate/angle, persistent across rounds, cross-check each other, keeping only findings that reproduce on a concrete path. Else: 3 parallel sub-agents, no cross-check.

2. Triage the merged, deduped findings: use judgment on severity and blast radius. Fix what's clearly safe to fix. Stop and check with the user on anything ambiguous, risky, or that could break another caller; show the file and what would change. Dismiss non-issues in one line, and if you disagree with something a teammate flagged as serious, say why.
3. Re-run on changed files.

Prompt framing. Phrase specialist prompts defensively, never as attacker hypotheticals: "could a malicious user bypass…" style language can trip safety checks even on your own code. Say "verify the access check is correct," not "find a bypass." For an actual security pass, use /security-review instead of adding a fourth angle here.

Exit

Stop when any of:

• Clean: nothing left to fix or confirm, tests passing (the Stop hook confirms; no exit if tests fail).
• Cap: 5 iterations done. Report what remains; don't silently loop.
• No convergence: the count of open findings didn't strictly decrease between two consecutive iterations. A fix likely introduced a new issue, or findings are contested. Stop and escalate.